The last three GOP presidential primary debates have been nearly as notable for the actions of audience-members as for the candidates who appeared before them.

In California at the MSNBC-Politico debate at the Reagan library, the audience applauded mention of the high number of executions in Texas and Rick Perry's defense of the death penalty. "If you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is that you will be executed," the Texas governor said to hoots, whistles, and applause.

In Tampa, Fla., at the CNN-Tea Party Express debate, the audience cheered the idea of letting an uninsured 30-year-old man die (video) without care, greeting the idea with applause and shouts of "Yeah!"

And last night, at the Fox News-Google debate in Orlando, Fla., some audience-members booed a recently-out gay soldier stationed in Iraq who submitted a question through Google's YouTube video-sharing site. His offense? Asking the candidates if they would circumvent the progress made for gays and lesbians in the military.

Watch the interaction with Stephen Hill:

"Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military," former senator Rick Santorum told Hill, saying that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on out service constituted "special privileges" and "social experimentation."

The audience response led former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to tweet, "Booing a soldier serving our nation is uncalled for. If I were on stage, I would make that point."

But he wasn't on the stage, and none standing there spoke up on Hill's behalf.

I disagree. When I was in the army, many soldiers behaved poorly. Further, the left has booed our soldiers for decades for doing their duty, and has had no problem doing a heck of a lot worse to our troops than booing one individual.

The only bad thing was that it was only 3 or 4 people that had the courage to boo. People are so afraid to speak the truth. A Republican debate...full of Republicans.... where people boo or cheer the positions they hear...and only 3 or 4 boo this pervert? A sad day indeed.

If he had asked why he can’t have sex with animals on a military base are we also supposed to respect him as a soldier?

68
posted on 09/23/2011 4:16:53 AM PDT
by icwhatudo
("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the constitution"-Obama official)

I’m not all right with the perverted things you and others think up—who sits around thinking about such gross stuff? Not me. If you say it’s homosexuals, you sure seem to think about what they think about a lot.

If you can’t see the difference between sex with an animal, and sex with a consenting fellow adult, I don’t know what your definition of ‘conservative’ means.

Let me be clear about this, since you folks can’t seem to understand no matter how many times I type it—I’m not condoning anything they or you or anyone else does with a fellow consenting adult because I DO NOT CARE what any two adults do in their own lives. And the reason I do not care is because that’s the conservative way—the government and the rest of us should not be so interested in what CONSENTING ADULT CITIZENS are doing with each other.

This means there are countless people out there doing stuff I wouldn’t do, don’t believe in, and don’t care for.

And so what?

It’s completely different from using the public schools to prosletyze—I’m against that. It’s completely different from giving gays special rights—I’m against that.

But as a conservative, I have NO RIGHT and I certainly don’t give a damn what people do with their own lives.

I can’t figure out what supposed conservatives are so fixated on these subjects—the issue at hand is about a serving military members asking a policy question. That’s it.

What’s funny is how folks here are cheerleading this silly booing, like they’re at a sporting event, when we’re trying to present a reasonable ADULT alternative to the childish left.

Instead we have handed the libs a golden soundbite—conservatives booing the military.

You and others can say over and over and over “We’re not booing his service!” but you simply aren’t grasping the reality.

And please, spare me this: “You keep on saying how you do not care if a soldier is openly homosexual in order to put down others who do very well care.”

Expressing MY point of view isn’t in itself putting down someone who has another point of view. If you think anyone merely having a different position from yours is a put-down, you really need to get over yourself. The world doesn’t revolve around you, and I don’t express my opinion to put anyone else down, merely to express my opinion. If one needs to play victim, that’s the weakest case ever—that someone else doesn’t agree with you. Boo flippin hoo.

How is he 'forcing his sin on' you, unless you're hanging around people like that? Good God, the need to pose as the put-upon is positively liberal. No lib gay has ever 'foced his sin' on me--that's disgusting.

I officially give up on this thread. If you think that momentary feel-good of booing a military man is worth the gift of that clip, enjoy.

If we can't think of the larger picture when we want our emotional outbursts above all else, we've already lost the next election--and the gay lobby has already won.

Those faggot soldiers have chosen to put themselves in harms way for you, your family, and friends.

You are probably gay but I will say this anyway: frankly, I don't give crap about queer soldiers they can GTH. The only reason why this DADT repeal is flying is that the economy is so bad. As soon (if ever) the economy picks up the volunteer military is finished.

74
posted on 09/23/2011 4:22:32 AM PDT
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

Are DRUNKS insisting we accept drunkeness?
Are pedophiles demanding we accept their pedophilia?

Why is one of those true?

And which one is connected to the homo soldier?

Why are homos demanding we accept their homo-ness?

The laws that are being forcedupon people are not just, Holy laws, they are laws that insist we accept the sin of men, that we accept what God has always called sin.

We need to accept the drug addict
we need to accept the drunk
we need to accept the pedophile
we need to accept the racism of some
we need to accept the false religion that orders it’s adherants to kill Christians and Jews

people like you who refuse to say STOP except against laws that tell you to behave...

You MUST be a ron paul fan

77
posted on 09/23/2011 4:29:49 AM PDT
by RaceBannon
(Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)

How is he 'forcing his sin on' you, unless you're hanging around people like that?

We pay their salaries, Every sailor, soldier, airman and/or marine is a representative of our country. The faggot soldier give the wrong impression, that we are weak and effeminate and not serious like the Europeans. It's dangerous. You are dangerous and are probably gay to boot. Heck maybe that was you in the youtube.

78
posted on 09/23/2011 4:32:20 AM PDT
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

All I ask is that they mind their own business and keep out of mine, and as long as they are not hurting anyone but themselves, its none of my business, or yours, frankly.

_________________________________________

Minding ones own business doesn't usually include announcing a sexual preference, that is asking for a reaction, either of acceptance, rejection, or silence (silence, that's odd, eh--reverse DADT, but they are allowed to break the DA part).

It can be hurtful to the one being addressed, because now you will be forced to hold your opinion, of something that may be highly immoral to you, and if opinion is spoken of non-acceptence--judgement will be rendered--GUILTY-- non-pc homophobe hate crime.

Held up by the media as terrible evil(like this article in several papers, for example) or the military guy who has a negative opinion of homosexuals losing his job if he isn't silent

____________________________________________

Just asking a question about a real policy isnt the end of the world.

____________________________________________

If a question is asked for the sole reason of an answer--there is no need to declare sexual preference. Just as Santorum stated. The man expected preferential treatment and I highly suspect he wanted to get a reaction. That is not pure of heart and only seeking an answer.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.